Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday December 04, 2013 @10:29AM
from the watch-out-burzum-loving-hipsters dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that the country's interior ministers will meet this week to discuss use of an app developed by local police in Saxony that has attracted the unofficial name of 'Nazi Shazam.' Just like Shazam works out what song you're hearing from just a few bars, the system picks up audio fingerprints of neo-Nazi rock so police can intervene when it's being played. The whole situation sounds pretty insane to an outsider, but apparently far-right music is a big problem in Germany, where it's considered a 'gateway drug' into the neo-Nazi scene. The Guardian reported that in 2004, far-right groups even tried to recruit young members by handing out CD compilations in schools. That sort of action is illegal in Germany, where neo-Nazi groups are outlawed and the Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors is tasked with examining and indexing media — including films, games, music, and websites — that may be harmful to young people."

It is despicable that anyone would be attracted to this sort of movement. However, it is extremely important that people be given the freedom to make the wrong choice of ideology. Only harmful actions should be punished.

I would argue that although hate groups are worse than barring people from hate groups, the government can stop the latter immediately, so it should be stopped. Work toward making the choice unattractive, not just illegal.

This is in Germany. They have a different history than we do in the US. You will find laws like that in France and other nations that where under Nazi rule. They are a democratic nation and it is up to them to change their laws if they see fit. Canada also has laws about hate speech that would not fly in the US. The US never had Nazis in control of our nation so we feel the best protection is freedom of speech. In many places in the EU they do not feel secure in that. The US has stricter restrictions on porn because of our culture. Although the restrictions are really very minimal outside of broadcast TV and radio.I hate when a bunch of people from Europe start spouting off options about the US's rules. Germany is a free nation so let it's citizens decide what works best for them.

The US never had Nazis in control of our nation so we feel the best protection is freedom of speech. In many places in the EU they do not feel secure in that.

Has nothing to do with feeling secure. We just want the f***ers to go away and die. There's nobody in Germany saying "Oh, I'm so afraid of these neo nazis, please protect me". They are saying "get rid of the bastards, kick their arses, and I don't want to hear their insane rubbish". Then of course there is the surreal point that these guys would have been the first to be put into a concentration camp 80 years ago. I mean there are _gay_ neo nazis. Don't they know anything about history?

Yea so you do not just feel secure in ignoring them. Actually wanting to destroy someone that you do not fear just because you disagree with them is frankly evil. That is what Nazis do. Really think about it for a minute. If they are no threat why not just ignore them? Simple answer is you worry about them becoming a threat.AKA there is no shame in not feeling secure in Germany about Neo-Nazis. In fact if you where just okay with it I would worry. It has happened before and that knowledge should keep you on your guard.BTW my Uncle was reported killed in action twice in Europe during WWII and had a terrible scar on his arm from where his watch branded him his tank caught fire and helped liberate one of the camps. He was from Brooklyn his however his grandparents on both sides where from Germany. He died in the 1980s but I think he would for the most part be happy with how Germany is today.

Uhhh...just FYI? Rohm and the SA leadership were pretty much ALL gay and Hitler and pals didn't have a problem with it until Rohm started talking about a "second revolution" because he thought "the little colonel" had betrayed the socialist part of national socialism, just FYI.

Hitler had a pretty firm "babies good, homosexuals bad" policy for the common folk. Rohm was a party insider long before Hitler was elected Chancellor; in general, Hitler was pretty willing to give special treatment to party insiders, even ones less senior than Rohm. Even so, I'm not aware of any other SA leaders who got a pass for the same reason; care to name names?

For that matter, Hitler's family doctor Eduard Bloch was Jewish, and he got special treatment too (only Jew in Linz with special protection from the Gestapo, notes Wikipedia). Adolf reportedly had quite the soft spot for him after he did everything he could to treat Klara Hitler's rather horrifically advanced breast cancer, despite her financial hardship. Basically, Hitler was a giant hypocrite who tried to ignore the brutality of his own policies by shielding only the people he cared about and could personally see suffering from them.

This is in Germany. They have a different history than we do in the US. You will find laws like that in France and other nations that where under Nazi rule. They are a democratic nation and it is up to them to change their laws if they see fit.

In case of Germany, the irony is that most of those various "denazification" laws were actually put in place immediately after their surrender by demand of the Allies, including US.

I wonder if they bust OTHER hate groups, like the mosques that preach hate, or the other "* Power" groups? Wanna bet the answer is no?

You see THIS is the problem I have with so called "hate crimes" (like someone is gonna bash your head in because they like you) is because you ALWAYS seem to end up with "protected classes" and "acceptable racism", for examples see black power versus white power (Protip: Both are run by racists that incite violence) or how the Muslims in this country can burn bibles and American flags all day but that preacher said he was gonna burn a koran and got thrown in jail.

Either the law is the law, equal for all, or its just so much politically correct farce and sadly more and more in the west the law has become the latter,with certain groups being ignored when they are racists while others are punished. If racism is wrong then its wrong across the board, all this politically correct bullshit does is make old hatreds fester and give the racists plenty of recruitment fodder.

This site (http://www.solargeneral.com/jeffs-archive/hate-crimes/blacks-more-likely-to-be-arrested-for-hate-crimes/) seems to suggest that this is not the case.

Further, that Florida preacher was arrested because he loaded his Korans into his trailer, then doused them fuel THEN drove to the site where he was going to actually torch them. This is a hazard, and he was properly stopped.

Would have been more interesting if he had transported the fuel in a safe fashion, and conducted his burn safely. I don't thi

There are parts of the bible that are highly pornographic, and if the Police arrested anyone over handing it out there would be an immediate backlash from it. Written speech is what has the most protection. Music is censored for profanity, and not for content otherwise "Caress me Down" would be banned for a highly graphic description of sex. It's played fairly regularly on one music station in Conservative Idaho so sex isn't as big of a deal when dealing with Music. None of the art galleries have been burne

i'd say it differs slightly in that the hearing of the things is not deemed expressly harmful, whereas the seeing of pornographic material is.

If I had to choose between my kids hanging out with teenagers that a) listen to neo-nazi music, or b) watch porn, I know which one I would pick. I don't know how anybody could come to the conclusion that listening to hate-filled anti-minority bile is somehow less harmful than watching a couple of consenting adults going after it.

Incidentally, indecency laws are made at the state level apparently.

Not all of them. The FCC [wikipedia.org] censorship decisions are made at the federal level.

from the euro-centric crowd, but this is exactly why you embrace freedom-loving society and not authoritarian socialism like they have in Europe. As John Green has said, you cannot declare war on an idea or noun because nouns are so amazingly resilient.

Your argument would be a lot more convincing if you'd left off the second sentence there. The freedom-loving US has declared "War on $NON_MATERIAL_THING" more often than any other country I can think of.

This is why you just don't want to mix your moral and economic philosophies. Is authoritarian socialism any worse than theocratic capitalism? or monarchic feudalism?

If you have a socialist system, the needs of society are held in higher regard than the needs of individuals. If you have an authoritarian system, the government decides what those needs are. There is an inherent conflict of interest there, where the people in government can simply declare that society needs whatever they want.

As someone who's been involved with universities for a while: you cannot get arrested by campus police for trespassing on most campuses. Public universities are public property, and most places in most buildings are open to the public. (Of course, if you wander into a professor's lab without his permission, you're likely to get in trouble.) At the University of Arizona where I got my doctorate, homeless people would regularly come to the library to use the computers for internet access.

Many private universities incorporate substantial tracts of public land (they consist of buildings on public streets), or are on private land but are open campuses. Only a few campuses are truly closed campuses where visitors are not welcome; those are no different than any other private land. So I don't know quite what you mean.

What sort of campuses are you talking about? On all the campuses, large and small, that I have been on, this is not the case. It would put a big damper on attracting people to lectures, cultural events, plays, etc. that the colleges and universities actively promote outside the campus. Are you over-generalizing from some isolated event ("Don't taze me bro")? Now maybe if you are talking about hanging out in the bushes outside the women's dorm, then yeah, that will probably happen to you.

Freedom of speech isn't safe. In fact it is very dangerous. That is why the United States has that first in its bill of rights, because it is so dangerous, you need a powerful law to keep it intact.

But it is really fair for the Government to say protect Far Left ideas while trying to hinder far right ones?

Now I do not support this ideology, and I agree it could lead to dangerous behavior. But trying to suppress it, could be worse. That means you could have a large population afraid to speak their minds. And if there was a government shift to the Far Right, there could be far more supporters then you would think. With little education to help moderate many of them.

Freedom of Speech and Democracy are hand and hand. Now Democracy isn't about getting the best leader, it is about balancing safety with freedom of speech.If you have Far Right ideas and you are vocal about them, and you still loose each election, it means you probably will not be able to take over the government, any attempt including military fill fail as bulk of the citizens will be against you. However if you hinder the freedom of speech, you could have the majority to join on your side in case of some revolution happens.

On the other hand, pushing something underground, while it makes it more concentrated, tends to de-normalize it. An open, normalized movement can be a pretty powerful political shift. If you look at all the major changes in US politics, it was only after groups became open and normalized (more or less) that they actually got traction and got policy put in place. When they were underground they had strong core groups but their general connection to the population was minimal.

Actually the order of the bill of rights has no meaning on importance, and it's a false inference people constantly make. What we now know as the first amendment was actually the third listed amendment in the bill of rights, it's just that the first two amendments were not approved by the states at the time, so only 10 out of the 12 amendments in the Bill of Rights passed.

The American Revolution where it was normal practice to tar and feather the right wingers, steal their property through letters of attainment and do everything possible to drive them out of the country.

The U.S. position, generally speaking, is that it's okay to sell a kid a Neo-Nazi tract, but not a copy of Playboy. It's okay to hold a public rally demanding the execution of all the Jews in America, but in most places it remains an illegal public nuisance for a women to attend that rally topless. (Unless, of course, the toplessnes

'left' and 'right' wing in general are pretty useless for trying to draw parallels. What they mean in any particular culture changes so much even over a decade or two, they are pretty meaningless when one attempts to apply them across cultures and nearly a century.

There is a spectrum of individual liberties - from total freedom to complete oppression.

In theory it wouldn't matter what form of government we had, if people were nice. You can imagine anything from a peaceful groovy hippie commune all the way to some fairy tail kingdom with an all powerful monarch that wisely allocates resources to create great public works for the good of all. In practice, both ends of the spectrum suck.

Well it was sort of at the start there is an amazing section on kershaws 2 vol bio of Hitler which has Goebbels excited running into a party meeting and announcing that "Hitler has abandoned socialism"

Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles. Prior to the emergence of the Nazi Party, other right-wing figures had argued for a nationalist recasting of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

Actually yeah, it was, though a different flavor of socialism than what you're used to.

But to be honest, I think sticking the terms right wing or left wing on these is stupid. It basically implies that there are two major schools of thought to politics when in reality there are many (infinite dare I say, because new ones spring up now and again.) Sure you can stick a compass for any one dimension on a particular ideology (e.g. freedom vs despotism) but you'll often find people traditionally identified as both left and right on either extreme of just about every dimension.

In fact, sticking a right or left label has the same effect as saying there's only one form of socialism. Marxist socialism is working for the betterment of the people, whereas national socialism is working for the betterment of the state (and part of building a strong national identity and pride.) Marxism might stress individual liberties with a collective identity, whereas national socialism is strictly a collective.

At least, this is what these things say on paper. Whether or not they actually do them is a whole other issue (for example, individual liberties never last under Marxism.)

Just because you identify with the left and don't like the nazis doesn't mean they weren't left wing. They were socialist. Their entire political platform and justification was to take away money from the evil jews and give it to the poor hard working Germans. Now, whether that's what they did or not, that was the platform and justification, and how they came into power. You can choose to ignore that because it's uncomfortable for you to accept, but thems the facts.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "right wing". Pretending that there is some sort of progressive spectrum from say the GOP to Libertarian to this is ridiculous. Most in the US tend to Define Right and Left as how much Freedom is protected or Regulation is imposed. Neo-Nazism is about hateful oppression of minorities. That data point has no place on this spectrum. Now this article is, of course, about Germany. I really don't have direct experience with politics there or what the general idea about

For what it's worth, I think it's fair to say that in much of the rest of the world, Left and Right are about wealth distribution, and about who should be in control of means of production (investers or workers). Not saying this is better, or worse, just noting the difference. That said, it is probably also fair to say that most international observers, assuming they use this classical economic notion of left/right, would consider the US to be pretty far off to the right. Again, just saying.

In post ww1 Germany it was the socialists and the communists that really didn't get along (as a result of the crushing of the Bayerische Räterepublik) it was that split in the left that helped Hitler gain power.

Eh, historically the constitution was pretty routinely ignored too. Even before the final draft lawmakers were making it clear that they did not intend to follow its literal interpretation and instead had all sorts of 'well of course we didn't mean XYZ, use common sense!'. Much of the bill of rights only really started gaining legal traction over the last few decades as civil rights pushed literal meanings more. For instance, cases involving religion, until very recently, assumed that freedom of religion only applied to 'real' religions such as Protestants. Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, even though they were 'close' were not considered 'real' religions and thus the establishment clause (and freedom of speech) did not apply, and religions not from the same tree were even less protected.

Nazi ideology is not banned by the German constitution. Some Nazi statements are banned, though they must either call for violence or racial hatred, deny the holocaust, or glorify the Nazi government of Hitler. Racist statements that do not call for hate or violence are allowed. Similar laws exist in the United States (see here [wikipedia.org] for the court's opinion) where the main difference is that the US only bans such fighting speech when it incites to immediate violence or hate. Invitations to deferred violence or ha

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

The U.S. holds that certain classes of speech are of sufficiently limited social value that they may be regulated by the state without violating the strictures of the First Amendment. Effectively, the difference is that Germany applies a slightly differen

As with many things there is a tricky balance between what freedom a society allows vs restricting freedoms that have negative consequences to others. In Germany's case they have a pretty clear example of this particular freedom having pretty horrific consequences, so I can not blame them for being touchy about allowing such things to grow again. For Germany, Nazism is not just some abstract philosophical threat, but a particular culture that had a very concrete negative impact.

GP and you really don't know anything about Wagner beyond what you've seen on TV documentaries about the Nazis, do you?

Wagner himself may have held some horrible views, but the work that he produced was not geared toward racism, classism, or religious bigotry. His fascination with Norse Mythology was not based on an attempt to tie it to Prussian and later German history, rather to turn an epic tale into an opera and into profit for himself.

They've been prohibiting Nazi-type groups since WWII. And as the article said, they're still a major problem in Germany. So yeah, it is working out about as well as the drug war. But hey, it lets the politicians say they're "doing something" and lets the cops get all sorts of new toys (and ever more tax dollars to buy more cool toys), so it's all good, right?

They've been prohibiting Nazi-type groups since WWII. And as the article said, they're still a major problem in Germany. So yeah, it is working out about as well as the drug war. But hey, it lets the politicians say they're "doing something" and lets the cops get all sorts of new toys (and ever more tax dollars to buy more cool toys), so it's all good, right?

Not really a _problem_. It gives every good and law-abiding citizen a target to get rid of their aggressions without anyone complaining.

I can understand why modern Germans would certainly hate anything Nazi related, but as an American the idea of just making the expression of ideas, or listening to certain music illegal sounds worse than the ideas they are oppressing (though any Nazis in power would of course do the same thing)

Don't worry, it's coming. I'm sure it's already here in some round-about manner. Being an American doesn't say much for how much freedom one does or does not have anymore. While I don't always agree to the whole slippery slope argument I'd have to be honest and say that it's been pretty much the case in the last few decades. Probably throughout the entire lifetime of anyone reading this.

I have an elderly neighbor of Japanese descent, who was actually born and raised in the US. We got talking one day and I realized he was around during the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. I casually tried to get him to talk about it... He admitted he was in the camps but wouldn't elaborate further...

The real questions is, how long will it be until it happens again in the US?

The internment camps where not death camps. The US did not intern all Japanese and did intern many Germans and Italians.What will prevent it happening again is for History teachers to start teaching history instead of political doctrine.I had a friend who went to Dartmouth. Her history professor brought in a woman that survived Hiroshima as a child. It was to teach that the US where monsters and dropped the bomb because the US was racist.The same teacher never mentioned the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death

The US did not intern all Japanese and did intern many Germans and Italians.

Certainly true, as worded, but could you produce comparative numbers, both absolute and as percentage of the population? The reason I ask is because it is not easy to find this information (to say the least). I would hazard a guess that FAR lesser percentages of ethnic Germans and Italians were interned, compared to ethnic Japanese.

The fact is that the Japanese were demonized from Pearl Habor onward in a way that Germans and Italian

I have never said anything positive about the US Federal government. I spoke only on the values I as an Americanxwas brought up to believe in. There has always been a disconnect between those values and the actions of our leaders. Many of us still try to hold to them though.

You are aware that NAZI actually means "National Socialist German Workers' Party" right?

Don't get me wrong as I am not claiming they are at all related, but a Republican is a Republican no matter what you call it - I don't see why this would be any different. It's a political ideology, and what you call it does not change the ideology.

As a historian, I listen to a lot of music as a matter of curiosity, and I have some real Nazi music (as in actual propaganda songs from the 1930s) in the same folder as other jingoistic things like Soviet propaganda songs from the same period and various national anthems including Hatikvah. So this makes me the world's first Zionist Nazi Communist.

It has nothing to do with the "style" but the actual song texts. (Like: "Burn all jews on the pire! Conquer Poland to settle in their ready build farms/towns! Throw all black scum into the river Rhein!")

Music is not NAZI music just because it has a certain style, or Ramstein perhaps would be considered a NAZI band, too.

#1. Absolute freedom of (written) speech, at least for the most part, to a degree that I am not aware of existing anywhere in the civilized world.

#2. Private citizens can own handguns and assault rifles for their own protection and uses.

Fight for those rights with all you have, because once they're gone, I doubt the world will ever see them again. Particularly #1.

If an idea is so repulsive, the place to discredit it is in the open, not to push it underground into the recesses of the underworld, lending credence and appeal to the idea through it's illicit nature. The written word is not a place for the state, any more than the legislature is a place for preachers.

Germany is keen on zee Guns - I recall talking to an old school mate who was a secretary working for deutsche bank in the UK and the German expats where most upset about not having their armed body guards (and presumably PPW's) when they got posted to the UK.

Especially if you want to show the world the crimes and torture of your government.

The thing about the US is that we recognize that our government doesn't always follow the law. Just because the government is going after people for airing its dirty laundry doesn't mean that the government is being either legal or constitutional in doing so.

No Healthcare, Death Punishment, many believing in Creation, I mean, that are medieval thoughts.

There is quite good health care in the USA. The only difference is that

groups should be put in jail or in a mental institution, but which music depend on each person and culture.

Ah that's easy: If they're country bumpkins, then folk music should land them in the klink. If they're teenage girls, then boy bands should do the trick. If they're of party-going age then we just throw 'em away for listening to electro / dubstep.

See? It's essentially all music that should implicate you in having a desire to not be ruled by laws like these. Well, you could listen to music that we're sure you don't like, but you'll have to be registered via FMRI to prove it first. Paper's Please.

Sounds like a open and shut case of a government preforming illegal activities.I do not know much about German law, but if they outlaw fascist groups and literature, would that not make the government itself an illegal entity and all of the bills that its far-right fascist laws are written on illegal literature?

That would be interesting, I wonder what would happen if you brought that to the court system, and tried to have some government law or flyer outlaws, or the organization itself disbanded.

I'm no fan of Neo Nazi's, but this strikes me as crossing over to the realm of thought crimes and criminalizing unpleasant people. Look at what they are trying to do, identify music as being wrong and identify a group of people as being wrong. Now take this same technology and remember that it can be used on other groups. What about using this technology to identify gangbangers that like gangsta rape or hackers since we know that they like techno?

The trouble isn't Neo-Nazi CD compilations leading upstanding, bright young people down an alley into right wing extremism. If they're disaffected, for whatever reason, they will continue to be so even after the CDs are destroyed or the books are burned.

Yeah alright, ban it all. Ban the CDs, ban the literature, ban the swastica. No-one will be a Neo-Nazi anymore, right? All the problems are solved.

Wrong. You don't become a Neo-Nazi because you love and respect the society you live in. You become one because you want to tear it down. They'll just funnel their dissatisfaction elsewhere.

The key to learning from history isn't to ban it, but to educate and prevent the social and economic conditions that would mean repeating it.

Kinda reminds me of the efforts in the 50's and 60's to ban that-there rock and roll in the US and England, because, you know, it leads to bad things. There may even be a common cause in disaffected youth.

about Nazi-ism (not just facism, but the particular Nazi flavor) that it draws so many people in? All we are ever taught about it is all the horrible, reprehensible stuff they did (it could be just the people perverting things as always ie the way things are headed in the US) in WW2, but was/is there anything worthwhile or morally uplifting about being Nazi that we've never been aware of?

Being a Nazi fanboi for shock value or for the perception of freedom to hate I can get.. some people are just wired that

Political labels don't mean the same thing in Europe, amongst the American citizenry and the American Media. In particular, the American media routinely call middle-of-the-road, mainstream political views, such as wanting to reduce govt spending, "far right", "right wing", "religious extremist" or "extremist". The American media also likes to call unprincipled or left wing politicians "moderates". The American media almost never even uses the label "left wing" and observing the American media call any le